Comments on: Only Human Beings Can Convince one Another about Facts

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Tue, 08 May 2012 21:48:36 +0000

Folks — two previously censored contributions restored with a small disclaimer on the top, one due to accusation of scientific fraud and the other referring to taking children hostage. These were selected based on being more articulate than other censored contributions. One can advise if further of Otto’s ‘best blogs’ should be re-introduced:

http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/04/nil-nocere-dear-cern-2

http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/03/telemach-shilnikov-superfluidity-three-undismantled-findings-render-cern-a-planet-eating-time-bomb

Unfortunately some of the more popular posts such as the controversial thread making analogies to Hitler appears to have vanished from the Trash folder…

By: Niccolò Tottoli

Niccolò Tottoli — Tue, 08 May 2012 18:49:15 +0000

Dear Tom, dear Otto
Or perhaps just edit some comments, delete or replace (change) some words and then repost the themes on lifeboat? It would be perhaps much better than a disclaimer for the people who have told something unfavourable but it would be more work than a disclaimer. I know that some quite important comments temporarily disappeared.
Sincerely yours, Niccolò
——-

By: Otto E. Rössler

Otto E. Rössler — Tue, 08 May 2012 13:25:25 +0000

Thus sounds very good, dear Tom. I gratefully agree to your re-opening all my censored-away posts with a disclaimer by the web- adminsitration added. I find this proposal maximally fair.

I am now going to look at your Email. Take care, Otto

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Tue, 08 May 2012 10:09:50 +0000

Otto — regarding censorship of potentially libelous contributions which you consider your ‘best blogs’ perhaps I can find a compromise that can suit everyone — in that subjectively libelous posts could remain uncensored with web admin inserting some form of disclaimer on such posts instead of rejecting the contributions.

As regards email discussion, thank you for the 6-point email, to which I have responded just a few short minutes ago with some initial remarks. I look forward to our continued discussion over such emails for now to find some common ground. Sincerely — Tom.

By: Niccolò Tottoli

Niccolò Tottoli — Mon, 07 May 2012 14:23:56 +0000

There was once such a discussion. It seems that the time for it was much too short and it was not prepared well, because many points have not been answered. In many cases there was only a "yes" but at the end it just has been told that Prof. Rössler "has not given any scientific argument", which was absolutely not true.

By: Niccolò Tottoli

Niccolò Tottoli — Mon, 07 May 2012 14:16:40 +0000

To my comments above: It seems that both parties (Prof. Rössler and some of his best scientific critics) have given some arguments, names of theories, symbols or (obviously) wise words which the other party has not completely understood. Sometimes it seems to be difficult to be officially honest on the blog and to admit some ‘holes‘ in oneselfs knowledge. Therefore I think that a private (and most important: very honest) contact would be important in the case of Prof. Rösslers papers. Perhaps the problem could be solved if it would be discussed slowly and point to point, to be sure that the discussion partner would understand all, perhaps with or without a referee, that all goes well. Both parties should make their notices and the discussion could be recorded. It is possible that the original record would not be published, just to decrease the pressure on each person but an official summary should be written, to show the reasons and results. It should be checked whether there is a practical or experimental proof of the important points and theories which lead to the opinion of each party. I think it is true that otherwise the issue will probably only turn in circles — and it is not good for all. And BTW — what can we lose with such a discussion?

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Mon, 07 May 2012 13:18:04 +0000

I know it is not your intention to censor my best blogs, but this is something the victim knows the most intimately.

Second you seem to have become complacent regarding time, dear Tom. This is your good prerogative. I will love to communicate with you by Email. But my reproach that G&M refuse to quote counter-evidence since early 2008 without being able to say a word against it, remains valid. They refused any form of communication ever since. So only the public route — via the only fearless platform — remains.

I appreciate every feedback. And still hope that the media suddenly lift their curfew. For if Telemach is correct, there really is no time left. Therefore finding a first critic of Telemach’s is — in my humble opinion — the most important task on the planet at the present moment in time while the record collisions become denser day by day.

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Mon, 07 May 2012 11:46:44 +0000

Otto — I am taken aback by your suggestion that I censor your ‘best blogs’ it is hardly my intention to cut off your fingers so to speak. A certain number of potentially libelous posts were censored, and a certain level of inarticulate and inflammatory spamming removed to improve the presentation of Lifeboat blogs to the passing reader, which is intended to cover many many topics and not just be some telemach blogspot central.

There has been a lot of debate on Lifeboat already on this topic — and I will decline further debate with you at present, not only as it becomes cyclical, but also on request from Markus not to state certain ‘facts’ which may damage the possibility of a safety conference. I think you know this. If you wish, please refer back to our debate on white dwarfs and neutron stars in earlier threads, or to the sections in the G&M paper on same, and we can discuss further over emails for now, but also please note that your Telemach issue is but one safety concern amongst many critics — in which case it is quite dis-ingenious to give the impression otherwise (as one can do). Sincerely — Tom.

By: Otto E. Rossler

Otto E. Rossler — Sun, 06 May 2012 20:32:47 +0000

Dear Darnell: I like your house on the moon. It is not clairvoyance but rational caring. Here, of course, I thank you that you dared appear at all. Take care, Otto

By: Niccolò Tottoli

Niccolò Tottoli — Sun, 06 May 2012 20:26:33 +0000

And naturally I do not mean that a private contact would suffice to solve the general risk issue. The only ‘final‘ way would be a safety conference with the international scientists referring to risks — some even not handled in the LSAG safety report of CERN.
——-